Mischiefs and the New R&D Tax Credit
What has Loki been up to lately?
Last week’s announcement that changes were being made to the draft legislation and explanatory materials associated with the New R&D Tax Credit (the Credit) was very welcome.
MJA has expressed its concern that the Bill’s attempt to legislate additionality and spillover in the Object Clause (something the Government publically assured stakeholders would not happen) creates a fundamentally flawed platform from which all the identified problems flow. These problems include the expenditure not at risk provision, the augmented feedstock rule, the severely restricted definition of R&D, the software changes and the radically changed compliance framework. Further details about these concerns are contained in our submission to the Treasury.
However, what gets lost somewhat in the debate about the impact of the changes is a clear understanding of why the changes need to be made in the first place.
This MJA Update wants to review some aspects of the debate with a view to contributing to a rational discussion when the revised legislation and associated materials appear. A future Update will tackle the numbers issue around the need to maintain revenue neutrality in the program.
It’s Blockbuster Time
Students of popular culture know that the onset of the Northern hemisphere summer heralds a new wave of “tentpole” or blockbuster movies. These days, you can count on a comic book movie or two to be among them. This is, of course, a good and bad thing. For every “Iron Man” to enthral us, we can be sure to be burdened with an “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” (Sorry, Hugh). Looking ahead, “The Mighty Thor” is in the pipeline and you can bet that there will be a role for his half-brother and arch nemesis, Loki, the God of Mischief. And if we are to believe the Federal Government, Loki has been wreaking his handiwork amongst the R&D Tax Concession (the Concession).
Throughout the recent consultations, government representatives repeatedly highlighted that the restrictive changes to the program were necessary because of various mischiefs.
Well, what are some of the mischiefs associated with the Concession and are they really, in fact, myths that shouldn’t be put forward as justification for the sweeping changes that have been attempted?
Mischief 1 – The current Concession facilitates bogus, illegitimate claims against the taxpayer
All incentive schemes may be subject to misuse and the Concession is no different. That is why the legislation includes a number of checks and balances including penalty regimes. Audit programs are in place to ensure that taxpayers do the right thing. In fact, all the evidence over the history of the program is that it is responsibly used by the vast majority of users and very few risk assessments proceed to prosecutions. Removing benefits from all taxpayers for the inappropriate behaviour of the few is not a rational response to the issue of alleged misuse.
Mischief 2 – The Concession provides assistance to non-genuine R&D
This was a can of worms that was opened up by the Cutler Report on the National Innovation System which raised concerns about “whole of mine” claims which were characterised as large, one-off claims made by mining and civil engineering companies involving significant operating costs.
The inference that has emerged in the consultative process is that these claims do not involve genuine R&D and should be stopped or severely limited in the new Credit. These sentiments fit in with a world view that certain types of R&D (e.g. biotech, medical performed by SMEs) merit support and others have a weaker case (e.g. large company resources and engineering projects).
This is not what Cutler said. Cutler stated that the so-called “whole of mine” projects were R&D but that they were expensive and that the government might look at putting some reasonable limits on the amount of support that goes to these legitimate R&D activities.
The real mischief here is when one starts to import a moral dimension to what is genuine R&D. The strength of the current Concession is that it delivers an internationally-competitive definition of eligible industrial R&D. The proposed definition in the Credit, in seeking to narrow the definition to limit assistance to “genuine R&D”, manages to disqualify the vast majority of R&D actually conducted by Australian businesses, large or small.
Mischief 3 – The criticism of the Credit has come from those with a vested interest in the status quo
The initial observation to be made here is that responses such as the recent public submissions to the Treasury will always come in the main from those with a vested interest. That is the usual driver for a party to respond at all.
If a submission comes in arguing for the status quo, does it automatically follow that the submission can be discounted because it is designed to protect a vested interest?
Speaking for MJA, our February submission to the Treasury essentially argued for the status quo. Further, we believe that the proposed Credit was not going to be good for our business. But that did not form the basis of our submission. We have always approached our submissions from a primary standpoint of what will deliver good program outcomes.
As recently as the Cutler review, we campaigned vigorously for the closure of the 175% Premium on the grounds that it was a high cost element of the Concession that did little to influence R&D behaviour. Yet every month we billed clients to prepare premium claims. We were happy to see this business go if the result was a simpler, more effective R&D tax incentive. We were pushing for a major change to the status quo.
Our views have been echoed by many other advisers, industry groups and taxpayers and the closure of the 175% Premium has raised nary a voice in protest.
So why is it that our critiques can now be dismissed as being hostile and reflecting vested interests? Is the real mischief here the fact they don’t concur with the views of the Government?
Mischief 4 – 80% of the Concession goes to 100 companies
For decades, Australian Bureau of Statistics on R&D have indicated that the vast majority of innovation spend is incurred by a handful of Australian companies. This is, and will always be, a matter of fact. The current trends in the Concession simply reflect this fact. Given that the Concession is open-ended, the share of those 100 companies will be determined by the prevailing rules and the amount they identify and claim. When added to the spend and claim of the other 7,900 firms in the program, the proportions will then be determined as a matter of mathematics.
There is not a finite amount of claims and assistance available. The proportions are only determined after the claims are identified and made against the rules.
The thinking behind the restrictions in the new Credit is that the rules can be changed to alter these proportions. This is entirely possible. You can rewrite the rules so that the proportion of assistance accessed by the other 7,900 is a much larger figure. The problem comes in when the rules are so restrictive that the proportion is larger but the overall value of the assistance to those 7,900 companies falls.
This is exactly the concern being reflected by the commentators regarding the Credit. We are being offered a program that wipes out assistance across-the-board. A larger slice of the cake might go to SMEs but so what if we are now cutting up a cup cake as opposed to a passionfruit sponge.
So, has Loki got something to answer for?
A recent editorial in the Australian Financial Review called for the draft Bill to be withdrawn or thrown out on the basis that the Government’s arguments for the major restrictions could not be made out. MJA agrees wholeheartedly. The mischiefs aren’t real. They are really more akin to myths (perhaps like the Treasury modelling that shows the changes to be revenue neutral?!) and Loki is off the hook on this one.
So don’t expect Thor to be wielding his mighty Uru hammer against the Credit in a multiplex anywhere near you soon. Not enough legs in that plot.
Looks like it’s up to us mere mortals to keep up the fight as we await the revised legislation.
If the suspense is too much in the interim and you would like to discuss the issues, feel free to contact Kris Gale directly on (02) 9810 7211 or using our contact form.
MJA’s Tax Credit Submission
MJA’s response to the Treasury Consultation Paper – The new research and development tax incentive.
So what is the Big Issue in the R&D Tax Credit Issues Paper?
A week in and where are we at?
The past week has been a predictably intense one. The Treasury consultation paper, “The new research and development tax incentive”, has attracted widespread comment, concern and criticism. Some have seen the paper as the harbinger of the end of effective government support for R&D. Others believe that the consultation process is illusory and that the decisions have already been made. MJA has a more tempered view. And it’s a view based on direct dealings with government over the past week.
Kris Gale, Managing Director of MJA, has met with the Treasury and Innovation, Industry, Science and Research officials nominated as the contact points for the consultation process. He is booked in to meet with Senator Carr’s office on Monday, 28 September. He has presented on the topic to three conferences in the last 7 days. Contact has been made with several industry advisory bodies and all members of MJA have been canvassing client companies and other interested third parties for their reactions and views. The month of October will see this program of active engagement continue apace.
Has any good news emerged?
The answer is yes.
The Government officials will reassure stakeholders at the announced public consultation sessions (see details below) that the paper is truly a discussion paper and that the exposure draft of the legislation will take submissions and commentary into direct account.
They have acknowledged that the delay in issuing the paper has placed pressure on the timetable for the delivery of the new legislation and allowances will need to be made. They indicated that the main source of the delay was the fact that the paper spent considerable time in the offices of Senator Carr, Mr Swan and Mr Rudd and that this is a reflection of real ministerial engagement.
Assurances were also given that the ‘additionality and spillovers test’ referred to in Paragraph 48 of the paper will not translate into a legislative requirement and that this will be confirmed at the consultation sessions. Further metrics around the issues raised such as the meaning of a revenue neutral program over the next 4 years will also be provided.
Finally, it is now clear that the Refundable Tax Credit will be available to foreign-owned R&D in contrast to its announced preclusion in the May Budget.
So what is the Big Issue in the paper?
Without doubt, the main concern raised by the paper was the announcement of the fact that the definition of R&D will be changed in order to reduce the expenditure available to be claimed against the Credit. This was deemed necessary to achieve budget outcomes and justified on a policy basis of focusing support on the areas of highest net benefit and redirecting support to the SME sector.
In announcing the changes, the paper curiously made use of the “old school” terminology of core (cf. SIE) and supporting (cf. directly related) activities. It was indicated that core activities will need to contain innovation AND technical risk, rather than just one of these elements. Further, limitations are to be brought in with respect to supporting activities and the paper sought responses to a suggested list of possible restrictions.
In the next fortnight, MJA will circulate its draft response to the paper which will analyse our concerns with this ‘Big Issue’ in detail. However, we would like to take this opportunity to sound the alarm now.
The Government announced on Budget night that the R&D Tax Credit will replace the “complex and outdated” R&D Tax Concession with a
“…simplified R&D Tax Credit which cuts red tape and provides a better incentive for business to invest in research and innovation.”
The Issues Paper makes the case for the Credit delivering a simpler program by highlighting the following:
“Paragraph 9.….Companies will no longer need to distinguish between their base and incremental expenditure on R&D in working out their claim.”
Yet, under the proposed changes, companies will have to distinguish between their core and supporting activities in working out their claim with the direct result of a restricted level of support for supporting activities.
So much for a simpler R&D tax program. Changing the definition of R&D will, by the few strokes of a pen, introduce an unprecedented level of complexity, attendant uncertainty and compliance burden into the program.
The case for definitional change is simply not made out in the paper. No concrete evidence is given. The very thin examples in Attachment A are misleading in their conclusions. No modelling is being offered up to amplify the cost concerns. Given these factors, MJA believes that the Big Issue needs to be thoroughly explored with relevant stakeholders as soon as possible.
If cost control is the political outcome required, MJA believes that the real focus needs to be on reviewing expenditure provisions. Changing the well understood, internationally competitive definition of business R&D will cruel the prospects of all companies involved, whatever industry they are in and whatever their size. In fact, it will be the technology-intensive SMEs who will be hit the most as they are the companies that spend large proportions of their operating budgets on R&D compared with the mature sectors who have the largest claims in numerical dollars but modest claims in terms of proportions of overall operating cost.
It is well known that Australia currently sits on the lower end of OECD Business Expenditure on Research and Development (BERD) comparisons. Changing the definition of claimable R&D along the lines proposed means that we should be expecting snakes not ladders in our BERD future.
MJA will continue its campaign of direct liaison with the Government to explore the issues raised and work towards a negotiated result that promotes a sensible outcome for business innovation policy.
But what can I do?
Make time to attend the upcoming public consultations. Details are below and bookings can be made through the following link Bookings
|
** Please Note: Seats are limited. ** |
||
|
Location |
Date and time |
Venue |
|
Canberra |
Monday 28 September 2009 |
National Convention Centre |
|
Adelaide |
Tuesday 29 September 2009 |
Mercure Grosvenor Hotel |
|
Brisbane |
Wednesday 30 September 2009 |
The Sebel & Citigate |
|
Perth |
Monday 12 October 2009 |
Rydges Perth Hotel |
|
Melbourne |
Friday 16 October 2009 |
Melbourne Convention Exhibition Centre |
|
Sydney |
Monday 19 October 2009 |
Sydney Marriott Hotel |
Make a submission. It doesn’t have to be a treatise. It does need to express the concerns that you have and it should set out how the proposed changes would affect you, both good and bad. The aim is to be constructively critical, not destructively so.
In both these matters, don’t rely on your advisers and industry bodies to make all the running this time. You are the Credit’s proposed customers. Your voices are the most influential ones.
And keep talking. Dialogue generates ideas that can then be translated to workable solutions. Please include us in your conversations. We are passionate about effective innovation policy and we would love to hear what you are thinking.
To keep the dabate moving, contact Kris Gale directly on (02) 9810 7211 or using our contact form.
How are we doing?
It’s always helpful to have your feedback on the articles we prepare, and the approach we’re taking in dealings with the government. You can help us by filling out a comment below this post on our website, and giving us any feedback you have on how we’re performing, or how we could improve.
